Evaluation of the satisfaction of the patient undergoing screening colonoscopy and quality of the procedure

Background

Screening colonoscopy requires quality parameters to determine its efficacy to detect cancerous or precancerous lesions. Limitations of the procedure are the patient's rejection, difficulty for its preparation or lack of preparation.

Objective

To assess whether patient satisfaction correlates with the quality of the procedure.

Method

100 consecutive patients for a screening colonoscopy were included, they were randomized to use a preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) or sodium picosulfate (P). In addition, a second parameter evaluated was related to a follow-up phone call performed to half of the patients prior to the study, during the preparation time.

Results

P was better tolerated and qualified, however, there was no difference with the quality of preparation, adenomatous polyps detection rate, cecum insertion rate and patient satisfaction. A difference was found in whom had a follow-up phone call.

Discussion

A good colon preparation is a key factor to have a quality colonoscopy, and it has been shown important that a good relationship for explain the doubts and follow the preparation.

Conclusion

It was found that the type of preparation and patient follow-up during the study correlate with the quality of the study and patient satisfaction.

Strategies to optimise the quality of bowel cleansing

Colonoscopy is the gold standard procedure for detecting neoplastic lesions of the colon and its efficiency is closely linked to the quality of the procedure. Adequate bowel preparation is a crucial factor in achieving the recommended quality indicators, but poor preparation has been reported in up to 30% of outpatients referred for colonoscopy. Consequently, over recent years, a number of studies have developed strategies to optimise bowel cleansing by improving adherence and tolerance to and the efficacy of the bowel preparation. Moreover, the identification of risk factors for inadequate bowel cleansing has led to tailored bowel preparation strategies being designed, with promising results. We aimed to review studies that assessed risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation and strategies to optimise bowel cleansing in patients at high risk of having poor preparation.

Quality indicators and patient satisfaction in colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is the diagnostic/therapeutic confirmation test for colorectal cancer. The monitoring of the experience of people who have undergone the test is interesting to improve the quality of the colonoscopy. The aim of the project was to study factors affecting patients' experience and their relationship with the quality indicators of the Clinical Practice Guidelines.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An observational cross-sectional study was conducted, including quality and experience indicators (adapted mGHAA-9 questionnaire and clinical history) in a sample of 432 participants aged between 40- and 75-years-old who had undergone a colonoscopy in 2015. Univariate and multivariate analysis with multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Satisfaction was associated in the multivariate analysis with evaluating the waiting time for the colonoscopy as short (OR=3.80) (1.76-10.90, 95% CI),>55-years-old (OR=2.60) (1.19-5.68, 95% CI), rating the experience with the preparation positively (OR=7.34) (3.15-17.09, 95% CI), not reporting pain or discomfort during the procedure (OR=3.71) (1.03-13.40, 95% CI) (P=.006) and being examined in a tertiary hospital (OR=2.81) (1.17-6.72; 95% CI) (P=.020).

DISCUSSION

The mGHAA-9 questionnaire adapted to Spanish is useful to evaluate patient experience factors. There are aspects to improve in terms of waiting time, colon cleansing, satisfaction with preparation and post-colonoscopy problems. Interventions should be implemented to enhance patient experience and colonoscopy quality.

Usefulness of oil lubrication during colonoscopy: A comparative study with the conventional technique

BACKGROUND

The different forms of lubrication are among the most simple, accessible, and economic techniques that have been implemented for improving the diagnostic performance of colonoscopy.

AIM

To determine whether the use of oil improved the number of complete colonoscopies, facilitated the procedure, reduced pain, or improved the study's diagnostic performance, compared with the conventional lubrication technique.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and seventy-five patients referred for colonoscopy were alternately allocated to receive treatment with the standard lubrication method with chlorhexidine gel (group 1) or lubrication with corn oil administered through the working channel (group II). The number of complete colonoscopies, the length of time needed to reach the cecum, the degree of difficulty estimated by the endoscopist and the assistant, the level of pain at the end of the study estimated by the patient, and the endoscopic findings were all determined.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients made up group I and 87 made up group II. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in relation to general characteristics, the number of complete colonoscopies (93 vs. 97%, respectively), the time needed to reach the cecum (8:00 vs. 8:41min, respectively), the level of pain at the end of the study, or the detection of polyps. The degree of difficulty was slightly lower in group II, but with no statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Lubrication with oil during colonoscopy did not improve the number of complete colonoscopies, did not facilitate the study, nor did it reduce pain or increase the diagnostic performance of the study, when compared with the conventional technique.